• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buildings collapse into their own footprint

I bet the Evil Them who blew up the towers are kicking themselves now.
"Igor, you fool! You made the building break into small pieces and fall in a downward direction!!! What were you thinking? You should have made it rise up into the sky in one solid block! Then no-one would have suspected our involvement!"
*Igor is dragged away, wailing, to the Dark Place.*
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Igor, you fool! You made the building break into small pieces and fall in a downward direction!!! What were you thinking? You should have made it rise up into the sky in one solid block!"
Click to expand...
If the buildings had been packed with the amount of explosives some truthers suggested, that's pretty much what would have happened.

Dave
 
Fonebone said:
Earthhquakes collapse buildings at near free-fall speed into footprints as their concrete turns to dust......
Atomized concrete dust
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Could you please indicate whether or not you learned from YOUR OWN EVIDENCE that it does NOT take any explosives at all to make a tall building PANCAKE mostly STRAIGHT down? And that the potential energy released by GRAVITY is plenty enough to cause lots and lots of "dustification"?

Fonebone said:
Another building falls at freefall speed into it's own footprint as concrete dissolves into dust.
Nothing to see here!
Video complements of Facebook group 9/11 Truth movement.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Could you please indicate whether or not you learned from YOUR OWN EVIDENCE that many of the explosives used in explosive demolitions occur PRIOR to the onset of collapse and are all A LOT LOUDER than the noise of the collapse itself - such that if you see a video of a building collapse and the sound track does NOT feature very loud explosion sounds PRIOR to collapse onset as the clear, #1 audio feature, you can be pretty damned sure it NOT AN EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION at all?

You know, like the three WTC collapses were NOT EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS at all as evidenced by the total lack of explosion sounds consistent with explosive demolition in terms of timing, loudness, number and brisance?

I will already THANK you in advance for your fully expected DODGING these questions :D
 
Thermal said:
Is the expectation that a collapsing building should pop off down the block a ways and collapse in some other buildings foitprint?
Click to expand...
You're not familiar with the abject stupidity and gullibility of 911 Twoofers, are you?
 
Fonebone said:
Earthhquakes collapse buildings at near free-fall speed into footprints as their concrete turns to dust......
Atomized concrete dust.
Click to expand...
Any idea of the size of an atom? Hint - you can't see them. Any idea what "free fall speed" is? Hint - it doesn't exist. What does "into footprints" mean"? Hint - buildings to not have feet. This is likely about as nonsense a statement as has ever been posted here.
 
Thanks.
Could you please indicate whether or not you learned from YOUR OWN EVIDENCE that it does NOT take any explosives at all to make a tall building PANCAKE mostly STRAIGHT down?
Click to expand...
No, I did not learn... that it does NOT take any explosives at all to make a tall building PANCAKE mostly STRAIGHT down?
And that the potential energy released by GRAVITY is plenty enough to cause lots and lots of "dustification"?
Click to expand...
No, I did not learn... that the potential energy released by GRAVITY is plenty enough to cause lots and lots of "dustification"?
Thanks.

Could you please indicate whether or not you learned from YOUR OWN EVIDENCE that many of the explosives used in explosive demolitions occur PRIOR to the onset of collapse and are all A LOT LOUDER than the noise of the collapse itself - such that if you see a video of a building collapse and the sound track does NOT feature very loud explosion sounds PRIOR to collapse onset as the clear, #1 audio feature, you can be pretty damned sure it NOT AN EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION at all?

You know, like the three WTC collapses were NOT EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITIONS at all as evidenced by the total lack of explosion sounds consistent with explosive demolition in terms of timing, loudness, number and brisance?

I will already THANK you in advance for your fully expected DODGING these questions :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
No, I did not learn... that it does NOT take any explosives at all to make a tall building PANCAKE mostly STRAIGHT down?

No, I did not learn... that the potential energy released by GRAVITY is plenty enough to cause lots and lots of "dustification"?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that this proud display of ignorance is helping you make your case?
 
Fonebone said:
No, I did not learn... that it does NOT take any explosives at all to make a tall building PANCAKE mostly STRAIGHT down?

No, I did not learn... that the potential energy released by GRAVITY is plenty enough to cause lots and lots of "dustification"?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
and yet you posted several examples of it happening.
 
I'm genuinely unclear what case this thread is intended to make. Unless it's a conspiracy where all of these supposedly unrelated buildings just happen to exactly agree with each other about what direction 'down' is.
 
The obvious implication is that the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11 because of their shoddy Chinese construction.
 
There were obviously Muslims under the twin towers. They blew up the footings, then pulled the tops down using ropes so that they came down faster than free-fall. And while the buildings were falling, these same Muslims rapidly "dustified" everything using...unicorn farts or something, I don't know it's all gotten very silly.
 
Do we have any Truther interpreters left on the forum? I can't make heads or tails of this either. What diabolical clues are we supposed to find obvious here?
 
Thermal said:
Do we have any Truther interpreters left on the forum? I can't make heads or tails of this either. What diabolical clues are we supposed to find obvious here?
Click to expand...
We're supposed to conclude that, because concrete framed buildings subject to earthquake damage can collapse into their own footprints with the accompanying production of enormous clouds of dust, it is impossible for anything but explosives to cause any kind of building to collapse into its own footprint with the, accompanying production of enormous clouds of dust.

Your only mistake here, is expecting the argument to make some kind of sense.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
"Ignorance" isn't really the right word to describe the act of presenting evidence that categorically refutes your argument while declaring victory. "Stupidity" might be a better one.

Dave
Click to expand...

Can we have both?
Proudly declaiming that he hadn't learned anything is a show of ignorance. Clinging to a fantasy despite the evidence contradicting it, and then expecting everyone else to follow suit, is stupidity.
Maybe I should make a poll. "Are Twoofers Ignorant, Stupid, or Both?" :biggrin:
 
Dave Rogers said:
We're supposed to conclude that, because concrete framed buildings subject to earthquake damage can collapse into their own footprints with the accompanying production of enormous clouds of dust, it is impossible for anything but explosives to cause any kind of [damaged] building to collapse into its own footprint with the, accompanying production of enormous clouds of dust.

Your only mistake here, is expecting the argument to make some kind of sense.

Dave
Click to expand...
Slight correction but otherwise spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom